Skip to main content

A Good Question for Ltc Schaffer

I've been "parsing" the NY Time's interview with Ltc. Schaffer as well as catching his interviews on TV today.

I've got one question. First, here is where my question is coming from.

Ltc. Schaffer's words from the NY Times interview:

"Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.'s Washington field office to share the information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001."

Yet, Ltc. Schaffer said here

"Colonel Shaffer said that because he was not an intelligence analyst, he was not involved in the details of the procedures used in Able Danger to glean information from terrorist databases. Nor was he aware, he said, which databases had supplied the information that might have led to the name of Mr. Atta or other terrorists so long before the Sept. 11 attacks.

But he said he did know that Able Danger had made use of publicly available information from government immigration agencies, from internet sites and from paid search engines such as Lexis Nexis.

"We didn't that Atta's name was significant" at the time, he said, adding that "we just knew there were these linkages between him and these other individuals who were in this loose configuration" of people who appeared to be tied to an American-based cell of Al Qaeda."

Alright, everyone is wondering what the "We didn't that Atta's" is all about. The word is "think".

If Col, you guys didn't think that Atta's name was significant and you had no indication or data that they were planning an attack, then my question is this:

"Why the big hurry to get this "no information" to the FBI?"

I mean, in your own words, prior to 9/11 you didn't have squat to report? Wall or no wall, what was the hurry?

In a post 9/11 world the answer is simple. But this wasn't post 9/11. According to what we've heard no one in 1999 or 2000 had a clue what these guys would have been up to.

Yes, if the FBI followed up we would have learned some more information, but that's not my question. Of the 60 or so names/connections/dots, whatever that have been mentioned as being on a chart/list/whatever, what was the hurry with Atta's group?

I submit: There was something they were doing that made the need to get out the news urgent:


Are we being taken down the primrose path again.

Here's the deal.

In other words there would have been NO reason for trying to get the FBI to look specifically at this group - again, for what? An identified Al Qaeda cell?

Ok, granted - that's important. But then what were they DOING? Was there evidence of an operational plan? Or some other evidence that they were planning to take, Oh,....flying lessons? Anything like that?

How many cells were they. If there were more than one, then what made THIS one more important than the others?

The most we have is you saying that Able Danger idenfitied them. Ok, but that doesn't warrent a full scale "tear the wall down" alert does it?

Yes in hindsight - important - but we weren't dealing in hindsight in 2000.

Think about it.


Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?


As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and di…

Monday Morning Intelligence with Kool Aid and the NY Times - UPDATE

Followup to previous post.

NY Times: 9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker

Ok, I've been on the phone now for...oh, about three days, to some old chums in Tampa, checking this story out, asking questions,...etc. So far what I've heard is that IF this story is true, then those who are really in the know in the Intel world are feeling like a bunch of little red-hair step-childred.

Ed. Morissey is ready to hang the 911 Commission out to dry......mmm,

Ed, not so fast my friend.

Again, I am amazed at the vercacity the NY Times and AP is getting on this story, and from the same conservative bloggers who are normally parsing every "dot and tittle" the Times puts out. Who would think?...

Yeah, there is a lot of "anger" because of "Gorelick" fever where the blogshere and conservative media rightfully called attention to her conflict of interest while serving on the commission. But we can't let the "gotc…